T-Mobile, AT&T Oppose Unlocking Rule, Claim Locked Phones Are good For Users (arstechnica.com) 25
An anonymous reader writes: T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. "If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers -- not providers -- who stand to lose the most," T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission. The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs.
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto g, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival's network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers." If the proposed rule is enacted, "T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto g, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12," the carrier said. "A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets." In July, the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the unlocking policy in a 5-0 vote.
The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
Don't even remember (Score:2)
How!? (Score:3)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit (Score:2)
high roaming fees local sims are bad for profit
Re: (Score:2)
Just how is a locked phone good for the consumer? This sounds like gaslighting by T-Mobile and AT&T. It's actually anti-consumer.
Because it's really a loan. Essentially you "buy" the phone at a reduced rate on the promise that you also buy service for the duration that the phone is locked. The provider covers a good chunk of the actual cost of the phone, and the user then has to use the provider's service.
In that sense, the providers are correct - without being able to lock the phone and guarantee the revenue stream they'd be forced to increase the initial price of the phone.
Except, of course, the practice is scummy in other ways. On
Re: (Score:1)
being in a service contract for the duration of the loan is completely different from them selling locked phones at retail for cash and claiming that its good for consumers.
walk in to a shop, buy a phone, WHY IS IT LOCKED?????
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isnt really with those on a service contract, its prepaid as per the summary:
Prepaid phones will not longer be as cheap as they currently are, because the phone company would have to make the cost of the phone back in the first 60 days or possibly lose the customer to a different network.
Easy fix: All prepaid plans become BYOD. Let the customers get loans from the cell phone manufacturers. If they can't get a loan from the cell phone manufacturer because they're too high-risk, then they'll have to just do what they probably should have been doing in the first place: save up their money until they can afford to buy the new phone that they want instead of buying it on credit.
The very fact that we've gone so far down the rabbit hole of encouraging people to buy stuff that they can't afford t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2)
Yeah, so tldr, if you remove the ability of the cellphone provider to optimize their profits by locking in users, they'll likely have to charge more to compensate for the losses.
Do cellphone providers not know about the importance of political contributions?
Re: (Score:3)
They've got their contracts with cancellation fees. Seems to me their profit is safe.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah aye. people are conflating being locked into a contract with buying locked phones at retail.
one makes sense, the other is criminal abuse.
They can't compete with billionaires (Score:2)
Folks
Companies giving away money now? (Score:3)
What free and subsidised phones? The cost of those things are still paid by their consumers with a nice profit margin for themselves.
Phone makers don't give away their products for free either.
Re: (Score:1)
the problem is they are selling locked phones at retail.
being locked into a service contract is completely different.
Re: (Score:1)
no, that is completely different. service contracts and locked retail phones have almost nothing to do with each other.
once those service contracts expire however, phone should be unlocked as fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
At least calling it "financing" is being honest. You're paying for it. Perhaps at the full MSRP. The carrier is keeping it locked until it's paid off.
The carriers should offer a few options. Buy your own phone up front for lower service rates. Or allow customers to pay off the balance, unlock the phone and then get the lower rate. Or buy the phone on time with a higher monthly rate*.
*Carriers will usually maintain this higher rate. But the honest ones will usually tell you that you've "earned" a newer mod
Re: (Score:1)
exactly. the problem is selling locked phones at retail without service contracts.
Trust is a womderful thing (Score:2)
The things I don't like is, you have to give up the right to use your device however you want, and whomever you want to get service from. Then you have to "trust" the Service provider to unlock the phone that is supposed to be yours.
Original galaxy Note (Score:1)
The world's smallest violin. (Score:2)
"consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."
Translation: "If we cannot keep our users on a leash then we won't be able to trick them into buying our overpriced service! You're going to prevent people from being tricked!"
Subsidies? (Score:2)
The customer is the one funding the company. Therefore theyâ(TM)re also the one paying for the free subsidies.
If you get a free phone thatâ(TM)s locked for a year, youâ(TM)re paying for it in extra profit margin in your monthly payments
A company that didnâ(TM)t provide free phones could afford to charge lower fees
Contract vs. Device lock (Score:2)
A few folks have mentioned that there's a contract, so the lock-in is unnecessary. I would counter that the lock in is a way to prevent people from ghosting the contract. Seems to me that, like buying a car, the device might not truly be "yours" until the last payment of the subsidy is paid.
I have no opinion on the morality of locking in a subsidized device. It's been over a decade since I bundled a phone into a contract.